A. NAGESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Home.

(2.) Petitioner was enlisted as Police Constable on 1.6.1994. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner vide proceedings dated 5.3.1999 on the allegation of "behaving in most irresponsible manner by collecting Rs.2100/- as illegal gratification from stipendiary Police Constables, which is violative of Rule 3 and 6 of the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 ". He was placed under suspension with effect from 5.3.1999. In the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charge as proved. Based on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Commandant 7th Battalion passed orders dated 7.8.1999 removing the petitioner from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by proceedings dated 19.11.1999. The Revision Petition was rejected by proceedings dated 18.4.2000. The mercy petition was also rejected on 15.7.2000. Petitioner also claims that his other appeals were rejected on 24.5.2003.

(3.) Though, no limitation is prescribed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition, ordinarily, an aggrieved person has to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court within a reasonable time from arising of the cause of action. Reasonable time to invoke the jurisdiction of this court is the time available for a person to prosecute civil litigation. Even after exhausting the limitation prescribed to prosecute a civil litigation, writ Court can still entertain a writ petition, if petitioner has satisfactorily explained the reasons for not availing the writ remedy within a reasonable time and coming to this Court after long lapse of time.